Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The one added fact is 'Returns contract v0 records,' which hints at the result shape but is never defined; no pagination or result-ordering behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb-resource-query core, then return shape, then safety. No filler; the only waste is the redundant 'Read-only' that annotations already cover.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the query surface but leaves 'contract v0 records' undefined and says nothing about result ordering or how the limit interacts with the default. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would notice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'query' and the 'limit' cap of 200. The description restates the query semantics in prose but adds nothing about limit behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (Answers) and the retrieval mechanism (free-text query over question/answer text), which implicitly separates it from list_answers and get_answer. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'free-text query over question/answer text' implies this tool is for keyword lookup rather than enumeration (list_answers) or id retrieval (get_answer), but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage is left to inference from the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.